Re: Future shell work - comments reqyuested

[Edgar Fuß <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost>]

TLS> I strongly disagree and note the obvious internal inconsistency in your
TLS> argument (such as it is):

I> If you want features for a scripting environment, use a different shell.
I> 
I> The /bin/sh is an environment intended primarily to execute scripts.

I> In what way is this inconsistent?  The /bin/sh of 4.4-Lite is perfectly
I> capable of executing every system management script of value.
There are people who write the scripts that are executed.
I'm one of these people. Well-designed improvements in the langue I use make 
my life easier.
I also deduce that you, without knowing any of those, regard my system 
management scripts of no value (they probably don't work with 4.4-Lite's
/bin/sh).

I> [dash] does not strip functionality, it never implemented it.
You may want to learn about the history of ash and dash.

I> Doctrine is important.  It guides understanding and decision making.
Yes. But ``don't change anything'' doesn't seem a good doctrine for all 
programming languages.

I> If you want ksh features, use ksh.
[If you want to stick to 4.4-Lite, you know where to find it.]

I> The /bin/sh is finished software.
Amen. Did you ever run into sh bugs?

I> It does everything it's supposed to do.
It forks too much, for one thing.
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that improving this is hard. And I would love
KRE